Nov 10, 2010

Deficit Commission: Cancel Marine Corps Version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Several Other Weapons

The co-chairmen of the bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform issued today a series of draft proposals to cut government spending. In the defense arena, they took a bold stand on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, particularly the Marine Corps's F-35B variant. Their recommendations might be a shock to Lockheed Martin and some within the Defense Department.

These are, however, just proposals and do not have the force of law whatsoever. It will be up to the Congress and the executive branch in terms of how to proceed, if at all. How much the White House-created Commission decides to advocate for specific proposals is an open question as well. That said, these proposals could potentially have some intellectual and political force given they come a week after elections swept into power a wave of lawmakers who campaigned on cutting government spending.

Also, "it remains to be seen how much of the co-chairmen's plan makes it into a final set of commission recommendations due December 1," according to Defense News.

Cancel the Marine Corps version of the F-35. This option would cancel the Marine Corps version of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter because of its technical problems, cost overruns, schedule delays, and the adoption by the services of joint combat support in current wartime operations. This would save $3.9 billion in FY2015 and $17.6 billion for FY2012 - FY2015. At a total cost of $41 billion, DOD plans to buy 311 F-35Bs for the Marine Corps to replace the Marine Corps AV-8B. In its recent defense review, the United Kingdom decided to cancel its buy of the Marine Corps version of the JSF. Further, the sophisticated capabilities of the JSF may be less relevant in current scenarios. Under Secretary of the Navy Robert Workman observed that greater use of guided missiles and mortar could end the forward operations that would be performed by the Marine Corps JSF because of vulnerability. Also, because the Marine Corps version of the JSF has been responsible for most of the technical, cost, and schedule problems, cancelling it could accelerate delivery of the Air Force (F- 35A) and Navy (F-35C) versions.

They also proposed:

Substitute F-16 and F/A-18Es for half of the Air Force and Navy’s planned buys of F-35 fighter aircraft. With a planned total buy of 2,443 aircraft, the F-35 or Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is the Defense Department’s largest weapon procurement program. This option would buy half as many as the 369 planned for the Air Force and the 311 for the Navy, purchasing instead the current generation fighter aircraft, the Air Force F-16 aircraft at one-third of the cost and the Navy F/A- 18E/F at two-thirds of the cost of the F-35. The unit cost of F-35 aircraft is estimated at about $133 million compared to $40 million for an F-16 and $80 million for an F-18E. The rationale for this change would be that DOD does not need an entire fleet with the stealthy capabilities of the JSF, and could rely instead on upgraded F-16 and F/A-18E aircraft for half of their fleet, a “high-low” mix. This is estimated to save $2.3 billion in FY2015, and a total of $9.5 billion for FY2011-FY2015. The option might also allow the services to upgrade their tactical air fleets sooner in case the F-35 is delayed because of additional technical problems, since the F-16 and F-18E lines are currently open. In 2009, CBO described a similar option that would have cancelled the F-35 program altogether.

The two JSF proposals alone would together save over $27 billion from now through FY2015, according to the estimates cited in the co-chairmen's list.

These proposals "represent another setback for the STOVL fighter," wrote Aviation Week editor Bill Sweetman on the Ares blog today, referring to the F-35B. STOVL stands for short take-off and vertical landing.

The co-chairmen also propose canceling the new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), the Ground Combat Vehicle, the Joint Tactical Radio, the V-22 and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

Taken together, the Marine Corps seem to have been hit the hardest with proposed cuts: notably the F-35B, the V-22, and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle. It's no wonder why: All of these weapons are extremely complicated programs, with numerous technical challenges that have driven up costs and stretched out schedules. The Marines wants a jet plane that can take off like a helicopter (the F-35B), an armored ground vehicle that can float like a boat (the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle), and another aircraft that can take off like a copter and fly like a plane (the V-22).

Although the popular and largely true image of the austere Martine Corps doesn't seem compatible with these kinds of exquisite weapons, the Corps is trying to meet the demands of a difficult set of missions, including assault from the sea against a well-defended land-based adversary. Sweetman at Aviation Week has taken a look at some of these issues as they relate to the F-35B.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has ordered a review of the Marine Corps' force structure, expected to be completed in December.

Comments

The marine corps should receive the f- 35b. For they are the only ones that would utilize the VTOL features. The whole plane was basically what it is today is because of the VTOL. As said boeing would have gotten the job and the whole plane was cheaper than the f-22 raptor. The raptor is more than twice the cost of an f-35B and requires more maintenance.the f-22 also has a problem getting oxygen to it's pilot. So why are we continuing to make a plane that is continually having problems and was grounded for four months last year. The marines need this plane because you can virtually land it anywhere which is what the marine corps specialize in. And yes china has weapons to sink a carrier however don't we have anti ballistic missiles? I mean really the united states was born in a war for we are the best at it. We will always outsmart anyone in weapons tech. We have sniper rounds to penetrate a wall and then explode. Why are we now canceling are military budget when it is one of the leading producer of jobs are country so desperately needs?

Cancel the F-35 NOW!!! That freaking thing is useless and it eats money. It was supposed to do more for less. Now it costs just as much as the F-22 and it is nowhere near as capable. There are rumors of the JSF being inferior to the F-15. The JSF is riddled with technical problems it is a huge waste. The military should supplement the gaps with the F/A-18E/F. JSF is an example of the Military Industrial Complex trying to rip off the Government. If the American people were aware of this situation they would outraged.

We are such a nation of geniuses. We pay contractors profit on development - the same amount of profit on development as they make on producing weapons - then we wonder why they'd rather design weapons than build them. Yes, we're real geniuses. To design an airplane all you need is a cube farm full of rented computers. If anyone asks how it's going, you say, "great." To build an actual airplane you need a bunch of manufacturing equipment and for the airplane to actually fly. Not quite so easy as the development phase, is it?

We're so smart, we pay the same amount of profit on both parts of the program, and then we wonder why the contractors are more than happy to see the program canceled as soon as it gets to be time to build airplanes. Seriously, you people are too stupid to keep your money. You deserve to be swindled by these defense contractors because you fall for the same stupid tricks time after time after time. If you weren't such a bunch of morons, I'd feel bad for you. As it is, I laugh at your stupidity.

Iam sick and tired of the Washington elites always cutting the corps and giving our best troops handi-me downs or systems that are not compatible with their mission and they are forced to transform these systems to conform to their mission. in the last forty years the army has received the
M1 Abrams and various model battle tanks and yes the marines got them to however it is not ideally suited to
marine corps missions and they had to make modifications.
the army received its m2 bradly fighting vechile which every one knows in the beginning the army was not impressed with and the black-hawk helios and the apache attack helios
the air force got its upgraded F15's and F16's B2 bombers
b1 bombers and f22 raptors and the navy and marine corps
received up graded f-18's and upgraded helicopters and up graded AAV-7's and then finnaly the corps received osprey
last year into service, are these marine corps programs expensive the answer is yes they are because they are trying to save and preserve lives of our marines and sailors
and soldier.

Not only are our carriers vulnerable to Chinese subs, they're also vulnerable to Chinese missiles.

China's improved inventory of short- and medium-range missiles provides a "dramatic increase" in its ability to "inhibit" U.S. military operations in the western Pacific, according to excerpts from the draft of the 2010 annual report by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission scheduled for release on Nov. 17.

China’s current force "may be sufficient" to destroy runways, parked aircraft, fuel and maintenance facilities at Osan and Kunsan air bases in South Korea, and Kadena, Misawa and Yokota bases in Japan, the report says. The facilities are within 1,100 kilometers (684 miles) of China.

An upgraded missile arsenal, including a 30 percent increase in cruise missiles since last year, "poses a significant challenge to U.S. forces operating in the region," the report says. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in June called China’s improved missile arsenal "a real concern" that also threatens U.S. aircraft carriers. -- Bloomberg

Oh yeah, this is the perfect time to cancel the VTOL version of the F-35.

On the other hand, maybe we should reconsider naval carriers as our primary means of projecting force around the globe:

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board.

By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.

According to senior Nato officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat.

One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon. -- Daily Mail

We canceled the SR-71 because it flew to fast to be shot down, and Lockheed Martin wasn't making any money off it, in favor of the U-2 which is slow and clunky and needs constant upgrading of its defensive systems to keep from being blown out of the sky. Now we're going to cancel our only version of the F-35 that can be forward deployed because our carriers are so very secure? Maybe we need to rethink that one.

In fact, I have long held that what we really need is a large, shape stealth only, Mach 3+ capable bomber. The USAF keeps giving us this crap about wanting a second coming of the B-2 bomber they built 20 of after billions were spent on its development. The stupidity of that is the fact that slow airplanes rely heavily on stealthy coatings for their survival. These coatings are very unreliable. The F-22, for instance, only has a 68% availability rating primarily because of the difficulties in maintaining the stealth coatings. The F-35 claims it's going to fix all of that, but that's just one more promise from a program that said their airplane was only going to cost $35 million a copy too.

The real "low cost" solution for a force protection bomber is high speed plus shape stealth only. The shape stealth is extremely reliable and testable. For a Mach 3+ airplane, it does not take a lot of stealth to keep another country from being able to shoot one down, as the SR-71 repeatedly demonstrated. Even today a country would have to dedicate all of their military resources to even have a chance of getting a firing solution on an SR-71, thus a bomber that flew at similar speeds and had as much or more range plus better shape stealth (based on what we know now of such things) would be virtually invinciable.

As for low cost, a bomber made to use shape stealth only could be made of conventional metallic materials, which would be much cheaper than the expensive composites that make up the B-2, F-22, and F-35 aircraft. This kind of bomber could even be made from steel as the XB-70 was.

The defense industry wants you to forget about high speed aircraft. They claim to be saving you money buy building one slow airplane after another. They'd even like you to believe that the future of aircraft is in huge, extremely slow and high flying blimps. Don't believe them. They are only looking out for their own intersts as they typically do. The interests of the US taxpayer and of the US soldier is best served by fast airplane. Speed is still life, not cost as the lying defense contractors would have you believe. Opt for speed, not lies.

Ironically, without the VTOL version of the JSF it is entirely possible that Boeing could have won the fly-off competition. Had that happened, Lockheed Martin would have probably built a stealthy version of the F-16 to demonstrate its feasibility. The F-16 being one of the best candidates for those modification. It can be made far more stealthy than the F-15 or F-18. On the down side, though, it has no internal storage for weapons other than its gun.